Martin Bashir Resigns From MSNBC After Horrible Sarah Palin Comment

[mota bhai 2,675]

@ the Hank Johnson reference. Solid point, BJ.

...all the attacks make her a sympathetic figure to those who would otherwise not care about her at all.

That's kinda the whole point.

[GandD 5,966]

I will never understand the fixation on Palin. She ran for VP. That's pretty much it. Now she does nothing except maybe give a few speeches, endorse candidates, and make some posts on the internet. For some reason, people like Bashir pay more attention to Palin than I ever will, and I voted for the McCain/Palin ticket. I will never understand the intense hatred for her.

She ran and lost. That's it. She's not incredibly smart or stupid. She's nothing special. She could talk forever and she will never say the stupidest thing I've heard a politician say (that honor will always belong to Hank Johnson) but she will also never say the smartest thing either. She's just a person that is now totally irrelevant to the vast majority of Americans; until somebody like Bashir makes her relevant again. All of his hatred, and the hatred of others like him, just keep Palin famous. And all the attacks make her a sympathetic figure to those who would otherwise not care about her at all.

Can we move on and talk about important people like George Zimmerman?

I'd say Fox news is doing a much better job at keeping her relevant. I think she really connects with all the housewives on Topix.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I hope someone sharts on her doorstep.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Firstly, shock value is what works for the American market. Clearly. Bashir used to work for the BBC and ITV and his style on those networks was very different to his output on MSNBC. It's quite commonplace in US TV news for the anchors (and commentators) to polemicise the issues. Clearly the issue is what the standard is for doing that, and in that respect there is apparently no consistently.

Secondly, generalising atrocities is what Palin did - she hijacked a historical reference and in doing so stripped out it's actual meaning. She invoked slavery purely for shock value. Does that honestly not offend you?

Correct, which is why she still has a job today and Bashir does not.I've stated many times that I think Palin is dumber than a bag of rocks and her statements need to be taken with that in mind. People give her far too much credibility than she deserves.

What she said did not offend me for two reasons.

One: Because I have no ties to slavery so I would have to be extremely thin skinned or just plain lying to say I was offended by such a statement.

Two: I don't usually give people who are dumber than a bag of rocks enough credibility to offend anyone.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Everyone has ties to slavery because it's a part of the USA's national heritage, like World War 2 and the Nazi Regime are to modern Germany. Noone blames people today for past atrocities (at least, they shouldn't), but by the same token it shouldn't be considered acceptable to trivialise those issues in a public setting - and certainly not by an elected official.

[GandD 5,966]

Its all part of white America's repeated attempts to de-emphasize slavery. You think slavery was bad........ WE had to think about the possible impending doom of a government default that may or may not happen and currently has zero affect on our daily life. Blacks complain too much.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Everyone has ties to slavery because it's a part of the USA's national heritage, like World War 2 and the Nazi Regime are to modern Germany. Noone blames people today for past atrocities (at least, they shouldn't), but by the same token it shouldn't be considered acceptable to trivialise those issues in a public setting - and certainly not by an elected official.

I have no direct ties to slavery. No one in my family was either a slave or a slave owner. To say that I am offended by any comments made about that issue would be lying, plain and simple. It would also be an injustice to those who do have direct ties to slavery. Were Palin's comments dumb, yes. Did they offend me, no.

Now, I do have direct ties to WW2, my Grandfather and Uncles fought in that war. Depending on exactly what was said and who was saying it, it may be possible to offend me.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Teddy B

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think it matters if you have ties to it or not - it's a point of general principle. You don't have direct ties to George Washington either (or any of the founding fathers) - but if someone said something offensive about about them, would you be offended?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Firstly, shock value is what works for the American market. Clearly. Bashir used to work for the BBC and ITV and his style on those networks was very different to his output on MSNBC. It's quite commonplace in US TV news for the anchors (and commentators) to polemicise the issues. Clearly the issue is what the standard is for doing that, and in that respect there is apparently no consistently.

Secondly, generalising atrocities is what Palin did - she hijacked a historical reference and in doing so stripped out it's actual meaning. She invoked slavery purely for shock value. Does that honestly not offend you?

That's what Palin did? No, it's what she does. Whenever she opens her mouth.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I'm still trying to find the sexism in the comments.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I don't think it matters if you have ties to it or not - it's a point of general principle. You don't have direct ties to George Washington either (or any of the founding fathers) - but if someone said something offensive about about them, would you be offended?

No, it would not offend me. Why should anyone be offended by something that they have no direct ties to? it doesn't make sense. If it would offend you, then I would say you need to get a thicker skin.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So you don't find racism offensive, for example?

[mota bhai 2,675]

No, it would not offend me. Why should anyone be offended by something that they have no direct ties to? it doesn't make sense. If it would offend you, then I would say you need to get a thicker skin.

That isn't how most people are, though. Say Jesus was gay and see how many people get offended, even though none of them were alive during those times.

I would say your approach to this is not typical of most of humanity.

[Teddy B 17,252]

So you don't find racism offensive, for example?

Define what you mean when you say "offensive".

That isn't how most people are, though. Say Jesus was gay and see how many people get offended, even though none of them were alive during those times.

I would say your approach to this is not typical of most of humanity.

I've had chicks tell me that in bed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it's self-explanatory isn't it?